Barack wants your money

[bobblehead]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

So where is the incentive? Altruism for fixing leaky faucets?

You are so right. I forgot the part of the Obama plan that states every dollar earned after 250k will be given to the poor.

I beg your forgiveness.

[HowardRoark]

The point is that Obama would reduce his taxes unless he is above 250K.

So where is the incentive? Altruism for fixing leaky faucets?

Who is neglecting to include facts now? Hint: exactly what tax structure is Obama proposing for those who make over 250K? Will it mean that every penny earned over 250 goes to the government? That's certainly what you're implying, but is that factual?

I certainly was NOT implying that all the pennies go to taxes, that’s quite a jump on your part General.

Over $250,000 not only do the income taxes go up, but the Social Security taxes kick back in too. For a self employed plumber, the number is double (12.4%). Pretty soon these numbers are significant enough to become less than motivating to make that incremental dollar.

How many pennies out of a dollar for that person making over $250,000/year will keep him fixing toilets instead of going to Mexico a few more weeks each winter? How many?

For me, it is a motivator to get to $102,000 as quickly as I can every year. that's another 6.2% in take home pay every paycheck. That can add up to a lot of beer. It is motivating.

[bobblehead]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

Examples of my nuttiness and conflation please. Much appreciated.

Conflation: you imply that Obama, or any other liberal politician, is espousing socialism. You ignore that what they're really espousing is capitalism with a little more government intervention than you would like. But that doesn't make it socialism. Not even close.

Nuttiness: you attach extreme labels to centrist policies and politicians you disagree with. If the center appears extreme to you, it must be because you're...out there on the wing wid da nuts.

I happen to disagree with you. You rarely, if ever, back up your arguments with even a whisper of facts. You seem to reflexively turn to the ad hominem attack.

When he talks about a plumber having to “spread his wealth around a little” in order to help those “behind you can have a chance for success too,” that is not merely a “little more government interventions than I like”…..that is an economic/political philosophy. He knows what he is doing; he is trying to fan the flames of a proletarian revolution. I have never once heard Obama talk about the need for the businessperson, small or big, as an engine of economic prosperity in our society. He always goes right back to his core beliefs that taking from the wealthy and giving to the poor is the preferred model. For what it’s worth, I am OK with the guy having that belief. I just wish he would me more forthright. Although now that he has a lead and the cover of bad economic news, he is letting his true colors come through more. As I said though, it doesn’t matter, because most of his audience doesn’t know the history of Socialism. I think that’s a fair statement on my part. And it’s not meant to be an ad homminen attack

Again, examples of my attaching extreme labels would be appreciated. .

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks. Call it a more progressive form of capitalism than the brand favored by Bush and McCain. But socialism it is not. Socialism is when the government appropriates the means of production (the factories, etc.), like when Allende seized ITT copper mines in Chile in 1971 or like what Chavez and Morales have threatened to do more recently with US and TNC-owned natural resources in Venezuela and Bolivia. If Obama was a socialist he'd be scheming to seize the plumber's business.

instead the plumber keeps the business and keeps working, but merely has his assets seized....he becomes an employee of obama effectively...sounds like seizing the business to me.

[MJZiggy]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

[SkinBasket]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

Of course it's a tax. He has representation after all....

[bobblehead]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

same difference..whre did the income come from...his business. Every time this guy fixes a faucet he has to decide if its worth his time...likely he stops for the year at 249k and you bitch that he won't come fix your faucet and you have to hire the "less fortunate" plumber who always does a shitty job.

[Scott Campbell]

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks.

Classic divide and conquer strategy, with $250K being the dividing line.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ok, I'll do my best to make the point using a clear example. When Obama speaks of "spreading the wealth" he's alluding to his plan to give tax breaks to those earning less than $250K/year, while those who make more won't receive the same breaks.

Classic divide and conquer strategy, with $250K being the dividing line.

Yeah..dividing 95% of america from 5%.

[Scott Campbell]

He's not taxing the business, he's taxing the personal income--and it's a tax. He's not seizing anything.

Huh? Taxes are not voluntary. Payroll deductions are not voluntary.

Funny how it's never called stealing unless it's coming out of your own pocket.

[texaspackerbacker]

It sounds like some in here are not aware that the great majority of small businesses are taxed as individuals--sole proprietorships and partnerships. Thus, Obama's redistribution scheme in the form of tax increases, even if it is over $250,000, will have a severe dampening effect on the economy, particularly on the sector that creates far and away the most new jobs.

And even if you're talking about tax increases on corporations, small or large, any tax increase merely becomes a cost which is passed on to consumers--harming the people Obama claims to be helping.

In addition to all of that, elevating the already high American tax on business, corporate and otherwise, serves to put American business in a worst competitive position with foreign businesses. That may not seem like a negative to Obamaphiles who hate American business--and America in general--anyway, but it is another severe negative factor in the flight of jobs overseas.

[MadScientist]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

Conservatives seem to forget that a critical component in the creation of wealth is the velocity of the money - the number of times it changes hands. By skimming a bit off the top earners, who would otherwise save it or put it into generic investments, and putting it in the hands of people who will spend it, the velocity of money is increased, increasing the total wealth. And with the numbers we are talking, the rich, as a whole, should do just as well, if not better than before.

And don't bother posting a strawman, I'm not advocating jacking the marginal rates on the high end up to some ridiculous level that could have a negative impact on this.

[Scott Campbell]

In addition to all of that, elevating the already high American tax on business, corporate and otherwise, serves to put American business in a worst competitive position with foreign businesses.

Or they incorporate in Bermuda, to avoid the tax schemes altogether.


I've always said if these underachievers put half the effort into moving into the $250K tax bracket as they do trying to steal from it, we'd all be wealthy.

[texaspackerbacker]

The saddest part of this is that the majority of his audience has no idea what the term "Socialist" even means.

Do you know what socialism means, Howie? How do you explain the fact that you (along with the rest of the wing nuts) continually conflate socialism and capitalism?

the problem with liberals is that they think there is a 'set' amount of wealth and that wealth isn't actually created....if the plumber has a lot of wealth some little guy has none so it must be "spread" around. Newsflash...wealth is created, not some set amount that doesn't change throughout history.

Conservatives seem to forget that a critical component in the creation of wealth is the velocity of the money - the number of times it changes hands. By skimming a bit off the top earners, who would otherwise save it or put it into generic investments, and putting it in the hands of people who will spend it, the velocity of money is increased, increasing the total wealth. And with the numbers we are talking, the rich, as a whole, should do just as well, if not better than before.

And don't bother posting a strawman, I'm not advocating jacking the marginal rates on the high end up to some ridiculous level that could have a negative impact on this.

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

[MadScientist]

The flaw in what you say, MadScientist, is that the great majority of these top earners are NOT retired fat cats or spoiled trust fund brats or whatever bogus image of the rich you are trying to palm off. Rather, most of them are small business owners--entrepreneurs who generally will NOT slow down the velocity of money as you describe, but maximize that velocity by investing in their own business--increases in employees, equipment, and inventory. THAT is what the socialist, Obama either SEEKS to disrupt or ignorantly would disrupt as a consequence of his programs and policies.

If they are investing in their business, then it is a business expense that isn't taxed. The tax is on net, not gross, so your argument is totally invalid, as usual.